South Africa accused Israel of genocide in an unprecedented case at the United Nations top court, saying the country’s leadership was “intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza” and calling for the court to order a halt to Israel’s military campaign in the enclave.
On the first of two days of hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa on Thursday argued that Israel’s air and ground assaults on Gaza were intended to “bring about the destruction” of its Palestinian population, and that comments made by Israeli leaders signalled their “genocidal intent.”
Israel declared war on Hamas after the militant group’s murderous rampage on October 7, when more than 1,200 people were killed and 240 hostages were taken back to Gaza. South Africa condemned Hamas’ attacks but said “nothing” could justify Israel’s response, which has killed more than 23,000 people in Gaza.
Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, who spoke to Aljazeera about yesterday’s hearing and difficulties Israel faces in countering South Africa’s arguments.
Here are the key points he made:
- It was clear that South Africa’s team put together a factually detailed, legally compelling case.
- This is an extraordinarily powerful case and so it’s going to be difficult today for Israel to respond to.
- A lot of the Israeli government’s responses have been more public relations responses.
- If they go into court today, and say ‘Hamas was committing atrocities, this was self defence’ they’ll get laughed out of the courtroom.
- Atrocities by one side clearly don’t justify genocide by the other side. These kinds of arguments are just not going to work.
- If they go in and say South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas, as they’ve been saying, that’s almost evidence of genocidal intent, because South Africa was defending Palestinian civilians, they’ve condemned Hamas.
Joan Donoghue, the ICJ president, has again opened the hearing today.
South Africa has “regrettably put before the court a profoundly distorted factual and legal picture,” said Tal Becker, a top lawyer for Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
“The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualised and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities,” he added.
Israel and its ally the United States have dismissed the case as groundless and vowed a robust defence at the Peace Palace in the Dutch city, which houses the ICJ.
“The State of Israel is accused of genocide at a time when it is fighting genocide,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the run-up to the hearings.
“A terrorist organisation carried out the worst crime against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and now someone comes to defend it in the name of the Holocaust? What brazen gall. The world is upside down,” he added.
Malcolm Shaw KC argued that South Africa had not declared a dispute and that efforts by Israel to open talks had been rebuffed. “South Africa decided unilaterally that a dispute existed,” said Shaw, adding that “South Africa failed to demonstrate prima facie jurisdiction of the court and to demonstrate intent”.
Israel argued that statements by Cabinet members, army chiefs and Knesset members, which South Africa said were genocidal in intent, were only “random quotes” made in the heat of the Hamas attack of October 7.
He said that if Israel’s soldiers had then acted on the statements of alleged genocidal intent, the country had domestic systems to deal with them.
Justice Minister Ronald Lamola told the court on Thursday that Israel had “crossed the line” and was in breach of the genocide convention.
He said that even the brutality of the Hamas attack could not justify this.
“Genocides are never declared in advance,” said Adila Hassim, a top lawyer for South Africa.
“But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts.”
The ruling African National Congress (ANC) has long been a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause, often linking it to its own struggle against the white-minority apartheid government, which had cooperative relations with Israel.
Anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela famously said South Africa’s freedom would be “incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
Addressing the ICJ on Thursday, the lawyer for South Africa Blinne Ni Ghralaigh said international justice itself was on the line.
“Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and will to bind and protect all peoples equally, hangs in the balance,” she told the court.
But Israel described South Africa as the “legal arm” of Hamas and said Pretoria’s case was “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history”.
Zane Dangor, director general of South Africa’s Ministry of International Relations, strongly denied the allegation that South Africa is “functioning as the legal arm” of Hamas.
“South Africa’s legal team represents the people of South Africa,” Dangor said after the ICJ hearing, adding his country is pursuing the genocide case at the ICJ “because we want to stop more harm to Palestinians and it is in the interest of justice.”
Dangor also denied Israeli claims that South African officials praised Hamas following its October 7 attack, saying, “It is something we reject with contempt.”
Gilad Noam, Deputy Attorney-General for International Law at the Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, concluded the case on behalf of Israel, where he asserted that South Africa failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute between the two countries and did not establish “prima facie” rights deserving protection.
Noam argued that the events in question were part of a conflict initiated by Hamas, asserting that they do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
According to Noam, South Africa did not prove the urgency of its case or show that stopping the Gaza war would not result in irreparable harm to Israel. He emphasised that Israel consistently takes measures to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza and deems the provisional measures sought by South Africa as “unwarranted and prejudicial”.
“It’s unrealistic to say Israel is not a moral country and has suddenly become a genocidal state hellbent on the extermination of the Palestinian people,” he said.
Defending Israel against the charge of genocide, Noam described the Nakba as a war “forced upon Israel”.
Noam said South Africa portrayed Israel as a “lawless state that regards itself as beyond and above the law … in which the entire society” has “become consumed with destroying an entire population.”
He further stated that South Africa had defamed not only the Israel leadership, but also (Israeli) society.
Noam’s comments closed the two-day International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing into claims of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel.
Israel has asked the ICJ to deny all of South Africa’s six requests for immediate preventive measures, including the end of military operations, the extension of proper humanitarian assistance (to stave off what the UN says is a famine) and the right to birth assistance for Palestinian mothers.
South Africa has asked the court to order the preservation and prevention measures in 10 to 14 days.
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesy of SABC.